PDA

View Full Version : 3-4 next year?


NIN1984
08-23-2009, 09:58 AM
The front 7 is such a mess, do we move to the 3-4 next year?

Kirk Morrison has been fighting for his starting job all summer and is now hurt and for whatever reason the coaching staff thinks Ricky Brown is good, when i re-watch the games that guy is on the ground a lot.

We have no DTs, they all suck.

Ellis has made a few plays this preseason and should be a solid player this year.

Trevor Scott will start because we don't have anyone else.

i'm no 3-4 master so if we change to the 3-4 what would it look like? who stays, who goes?

RaiderNation
08-23-2009, 01:52 PM
Really doubt it if Al is still alive. He just needs to realize for 1 draft he needs to draft a NT with a 1st round pick. Our offense looked fine against the 49ers, so if we are able to atleast improve the run D we will be fine. We should ahve traded for Shaun Rodgers

bernbabybern820
08-23-2009, 02:57 PM
We actually used the USC version of the 3-4 with the "elephant" position but it still didn't work too well.

Splat
08-23-2009, 06:15 PM
Might as well the rest of the Div is.:)

Stash
08-23-2009, 09:12 PM
We would have decent DE's in a 3-4 (Kelly and Ellis/Richardson), but that's about it. We have no NT and I don't think Morrison or Howard would fit the 3-4 LB mold.

NIN1984
08-23-2009, 10:06 PM
Kelly would probably be a good 3-4 DE and Scott might be a good rush LB in a 3-4, he seems to fit that mold with his size and speed.

RaiderNation
08-24-2009, 06:09 PM
We would have to trade real NT to do a 3-4(**** we need a real NT fo our 4-3 too). I think Morrison and Howard would be average at ILB's, I dont see any of our DE being able to play OLB though. Kelly would be a alright DE though. We need to stick with our 4-3 though, IMO all we need is a solid DT, a SLB and a all around DE and our D would be pretty good.

Abaddon
09-06-2009, 05:49 AM
We would have decent DE's in a 3-4 (Kelly and Ellis/Richardson), but that's about it. We have no NT and I don't think Morrison or Howard would fit the 3-4 LB mold.

Someone doesn't understand the 3-4 very well if they think Ellis, a 3-4 OLB, could play DE in that scheme.

Richardson is too soft to hold up. Shaugnnessy, maybe. Definitely not Richardson, though.

Ellis would be a decent OLB, but that's about it. Scott is questionable.

As poorly equipped to run a 4-3 as this team is, they'd be even worse in a 3-4. There's simply not enough talent, or effort, on the roster to field an NFL caliber defense.

NIN1984
09-06-2009, 11:59 AM
DE - Tommy Kelly
NT - Terrence Cody
DE - Richard Seymour

that could be a great 3-4 d-line.

Babylon
09-06-2009, 01:03 PM
Why wait till next year?

bernbabybern820
09-06-2009, 01:40 PM
Why wait till next year?

No nose tackle.

Stash
09-06-2009, 04:11 PM
Someone doesn't understand the 3-4 very well if they think Ellis, a 3-4 OLB, could play DE in that scheme.

Richardson is too soft to hold up. Shaugnnessy, maybe. Definitely not Richardson, though.

Ellis would be a decent OLB, but that's about it. Scott is questionable.

As poorly equipped to run a 4-3 as this team is, they'd be even worse in a 3-4. There's simply not enough talent, or effort, on the roster to field an NFL caliber defense.
For some reason I thought Ellis was larger than he is, so you're right he wouldn't fit there. But I do think Richardson would be alright as a 3-4 DE, don't know why you think he's soft. He's not impressive but he doesn't completely suck like most of our D-line the last few years. At least we can agree that this team would not be equipped to run a 3-4.

RaiderNation
09-06-2009, 07:51 PM
Trading for Seymour now gives us something to think about if our defense doesnt work out this year. Draft/sign/trade for a quality NT, OLB and ILB could get us a solid 3-4 D

Kelly
Insert Name Here
Seymour

Ellis
Howard/Morrison
Insert name Here
Scott? Insert Name Here

Maybe we trade down in we are in the top 10 and get Mount Cody, sign a vet ILB and see if Scott can make it as a OLB

Abaddon
09-08-2009, 05:08 AM
So the plan is to fire Marshall after one season then?